It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SEAL Team 7 leadership fired

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
In a shocking move, Rear Adm. Collin Green, head of Naval Special Warfare Command, the Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, and Command Master Chief of SEAL Team 7 have been fired. The team was kicked out if Iraq this summer after allegations of alcohol abuse and sexual assault.

The Special Operations units, especially the SEAL Teams have been under fire lately for everything from alcohol fueled parties in Iraq, to murder in Mali. The Navy has said they are taking steps to rein their teams in, including returning to basic discipline standards.

www.businessinsider.com...




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Almost all of SOCOM has let professionalism, once the absolute mainstay of the trade, slip away. It's been replaced by bravado, narcissism, and murderous intent.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

I'd love to see charges, not just firings, but it's a start.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

MAGA



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
...the SEAL Teams have been under fire lately for everything from alcohol fueled parties in Iraq, to murder in Mali.


Mali? Is there just one country where we don't have troops?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: starviego

There are a lot of countries we don't have troops. They're in Mali assisting the government forces with training and improving their capabilities.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: starviego

There are a lot of countries we don't have troops. They're in Mali assisting the government forces with training and improving their capabilities.


And this benefits the US taxpayer how?

If we didn't have to have troops in Mali for the first 225 years of our nation's existence, why do we have to have them there now?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: starviego

Having stable countries benefits everyone. The more stable Mali is, the less likely of people that want to kill lots of innocent people(yes, they really do exist) are to hide there. Mali has been unstable and getting worse. Villages are being attacked, places where tourists gather are being attacked...

We didn't have troops there "the first 225 years of our countries existence" because the world wasn't connected the way it is now. There is an international force in Mali and has been for years.
edit on 9/6/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Villages are being attacked, places where tourists gather are being attacked...


Cry me a river. Boo-hoo-hoo! Bring the troops home!

(hope this doesn't affect my social credit score)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: starviego

And eventually the people attacking those villages stop being happy with attacking villages, or run out of targets and go other places. Given the chance to kill them there, or have them go somewhere a lot more people could die, I'd rather see the bad guys die there. Or we can bring all the troops home, and suddenly everywhere in the world will be peaceful and get along, and we'll save billions and go to Mars, and the world will stop warming.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Villages are being attacked, places where tourists gather are being attacked...


Cry me a river. Boo-hoo-hoo! Bring the troops home!

(hope this doesn't affect my social credit score)

Yeah ... it sort'a-kind'a did.

Think you can you get San Diego to declare me a Domestic T-bone the same way San Fran did?

Jerk.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
yep..

every seal team has to adjust



posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

alcohol abuse? go through what they went through and then say you dont need a drink



posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AnrkE

Alcohol abuse in Iraq, where they banned drinking. Drinking is understood. A raging alcohol induced party, insulting their host country isn't.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: starviego

And eventually the people attacking those villages stop being happy with attacking villages, or run out of targets and go other places. Given the chance to kill them there, or have them go somewhere a lot more people could die, I'd rather see the bad guys die there. Or we can bring all the troops home, and suddenly everywhere in the world will be peaceful and get along, and we'll save billions and go to Mars, and the world will stop warming.


The problem is that, once there is no rule of law, Mali becomes the next Afghanistan.

A terrorist group moves in, realizing nobody is going to oppose them setting up shop, and then trains a bunch of sleeper agents to fly airplanes into buildings.

(Or maybe this time it will be driving diesel tankers into population centers and lighting them up, or stealing fertilizer shipments to go with the diesel tankers, and mixing the two. )



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Shades of tailhook.



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AnrkE

Alcohol abuse in Iraq, where they banned drinking. Drinking is understood. A raging alcohol induced party, insulting their host country isn't.


i was talking about when they come home. not there. but ya there a bad idea but understandable
edit on 7-10-2019 by AnrkE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AnrkE

Alcohol abuse here, not an issue usually, but now they have people saying that despite the first rule being no alcohol, it was fine for them to drink, because NSWC looked the other way.



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

its men and boys competing with stress of death and women. so there is that. why should we follow their rules? isnt that war is for? freedom. we can kill you but........we wont drink because that is frowned upon by some guy in the sky says no? ummm pretty sure alcohol is needed and less be-headings. how bout our women? come on

edit on 7-10-2019 by AnrkE because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AnrkE

You don't spit on your allies in their country. Yes, we need to do something about how women are treated, but that's for negotiations and diplomats, not the field level troop. The bigger issue here is that SOCOM issued an order saying no alcohol, but people decided since NSWC looked the other way they didn't have to follow the order.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join